Don't Praise the Bloggers

There's been plenty of back-slapping in the past few days among bloggers for picking apart Dan Rather's flimsy and utterly un-newsworthy story on George Bush's already well-documented abandonment of the National Guard -in my opinion, way too much self satisfaction.

All blogging has done that I can see in terms of this year's election is to help entrench the pathetic moral relativism that cripples mainstream media, especially the flavor found on television "news." The pro-Bush and anti-Bush bloggers that dominate the scene merely make the talk show hosts adhere to their cowardly 50/50 doctrine. And this allows for liars like the Swift Boaters to float untruths that are then portrayed - in terms of talking time - as at least half true. Almost nothing is too crazy, too wild to spout - the Roves and the Moores understand that their gelded media partners in the reality show that is national politics will give them equal time.

Calling it fairly, you'd have to agree that in the main this has benefitted the Bush-Cheney reelection effort, because it creates doubt about what John Kerry chose to make the centerpiece of his campaign (Vietnam) and it distracts from the central issue of the day - the utter disaster that is Iraq. No surprise the polls have moved.

What's pretty funny in all this is the us versus them attitude of big-time bloggers. Hey fellas, it's not us versus them - we are them! If you look closely, you can see the "big media" roots of the bloggers with the biggest followings. That's no accident: these guys are pros. Hell, Jeff Jarvis was a critic for the largest circulation magazine in the United States, and yet he still argues (sometimes) that blogging is a huge citizens' movement that creates greater accountability.

In today's New York Post, Jarvis urges bloggers not to be smug:

I just hope that bloggers aren't seduced by the scoop and the gotcha as Big Media has been. As a reporter, I well understand the joy of the hunt, the thrill of the kill. But in this campaign, in print and online, the scoops haven't been the real story. The real story is still out there.

But he also seems to take pride in the bloggers' dissection of Rathergate:

I am proud of bloggers for fact-checking Big Media's ass and improving news. I'm also proud that not all bloggers have been in lockstep on Rathergate; they have debated every point of forensic typography. That's good. Debate is how we get to the truth. Debate is how we run a democracy.

Well, I agree with the sentiment, but not with the analysis. No accident that this freedom-loving citizens' media was - in this case - led to its Rathergate attacks by (gasp!) "an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who had helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal," according to the LA Times.

Yeah, the LAT did some good old-fashioned reporting and found that "citizen" Buckhead, the intrepid, independent blogger who first reported the typography problems in the 60 Minutes memos, happened to be none other than one Harry W. MacDougald, "a lawyer in the Atlanta office of the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice and is affiliated with two prominent conservative legal groups: the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation."

I am hardly shocked - shocked - to find politics at work here. If you do the digging, you won't be either. The best bloggers are generally those with a background in media, the very "mainstream media" or "big media" they tend to deride. Most have worked for, written for, freelanced for at least one of those money-making titles. The blogosphere is, frankly, led by the same chronically underpaid, underemployed group of media workers that helped to create the commercial Internet a decade ago. (I should know: they are me and I am them). Add to that an army of technology geeks, media commentators with books to sell, and politically savvy operatives, and you've got - in my rough estimation - approximately 99% of the best-written, best-trafficked blogs in the world.

So spare me the citizen's media stuff. JD Lasica links to a piece on ABCNews.com by Michael Malone that argues that "big media" is dying at the hands of we small media types. That's crazy talk. Met any blogging millionaires, recently?

On the other hand, I agree with the Jay Rosen's "legacy media" riff - which goes along with the myth of impartiality, and the lurking profit motive in all mainstream journalism. Says Rosen in his terrific round-up on the NYU site:

Journalists find before them, with 50 days left, a campaign overtaken by Vietnam, by character issues, attacks, and fights about the basic legitimacy of various actors - including the press itself, including Dan Rather. It's been a dark week. And the big arrow is pointing backwards.

UPDATE: This post got some responses elsewhere that I'd like to point to. In echoing some of my thoughts, Fred adds:

I can't deal with is all the celebration around this david beating goliath. The blog world is full of so much crap that it makes mainstream media look clean by comparison. So anyone who thinks this is "vindication" for the bloggers is wrong.

Yeah, I agree frankly. JD suggests "we're losing sight of the bigger picture" (also agree) while Jeff says he doesn't fully agree with me, nor I with him (but I suspect we're actually closer on this than at first glance). Jason has a long post playing off mine that, frankly, completes a picture that I painted rather sketchily - no accident, since we wrote and co-wrote and edited each other's articles on what is now called "citizen's media" for many years. Quoth Chervokas (on the apsect I negected):

What Tom discounts however is the impact of blog self-publishing on traditional print media. Like all of Internet media, blogging creates competition by adding yet another new medium to divert eyeballs. And the better job blogs do in producing new information (not just commentary on someone else's information) the more of a diversion they will be. But unless people start charging for blogs the impact may be worse for the journalists than it will be for the media conglomerates. Through the magic of blogs journalists now get to do for free what they used to be paid to do!

UPDATE II: Dan Gillmor has a good column on this today, saying: "while doubts about the memo's authenticity were first raised on the Internet, some of the self-congratulatory online chest-thumping is overdone." This is basically my point. Oh, and this afternoon, Rather finally admitted his error and apologized. And for a lighter take, check out Wolcott's expose on CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.

Comments

[Mark A. York]

I don't praise them either since the blog mob is usually wrong on most things and reallly just repastes and comments on stories reported by the mainstream media. They do very little original reporting and have no training in it. That's amateur hubris. Sounds familiar.

[Duncan Lamb]

"...and it distracts from the central issue of the day - the utter disaster that is Iraq."

Might have seemed a well thought out argument if it wasn't for that.

Let's just say it's human nature to not be able to see this particular issue without injecting politics into one's views. Honestly, there's no problem with people comparing Republicans to Lenin (a quote you found quite entertaining, and apparently strongly agree with), but you get pissy when bloggers wishing to find facts to debunk accusations find them?

Try it yourself.. it's hard work. I can see you don't value it quite as much as you probably should.

[Tom K]

Tom:

How about you try removing your partisan blinders and just admit that: (i) whatever their political affliations, the critics of this story were fundamentally right; and (ii) Dan Rather's bizzare and drawn-out response to what surely was an honest mistake has made this story a significant event in network news history?

Attacking the motives of people who have been proven right does not make them wrong. Or, are you adapting the argument that, while the documents are forgeries, the story based on them was valid?

Based on the substance of your belated take, I think you were better off ignoring this one.

[chervokas]

Guys-

I think Tom's making two points here. One, the primary one as reflected in the piece's title, is that the cultural significance of the role that blogging played in the exposition of CBS's journalistic screw-up has been over-played and over-hyped by bloggers desperate to see themselves as part of a cultural revolution. That is a point with which I strongly agree as I wrote on TRICKSTER! (http://chervokas.typepad.com).

The second seems to be ill-formed, somehow involving and conflating blog hype, political partisanship, and the CBS story. I can't say much about that one. (If I had been editing him back in the day I might have asked him to clear it up and make it stronger even if I disagreed w/ it.)

I'm as strongly anti-Bush as anyone in the country. I think his presidency has been a disaster of historic proportions and I think there's real danger to our nation's security and fiscal stability in his re-election. In fact I joined a political party for the first time in a very active political life because I felt strongly about the need to oppose his re-election in an organized way. But I don't see my politics as relevant to the Rather/CBS issue. Bad journalism is bad journalism. I don't think Tom would disagree with the notion that Rather and his producers ran w/ a story that, at the very least they thought would be a big grabber, at the worst suited their partisan interests, based on embarassingly lousy reporting and that they should be excoriated for that.

[Tom W.]

Uh Tom, what part about "Dan Rather's flimsy and utterly un-newsworthy story" seemed to defend CBS? Obviously Rather and CBS screwed up - was not attempting to debate that. But I don't think it's a particularly "significant event in network news history" either, because the story itself was so unimportant. We already knew about GWB's Guard record.

And Jason, my second was basically that it was all inside baseball - the sources of the "scoop," the bloggers right and left, and CBS. It's the same group that always circles itself. I should have, perhaps, been clearer than that.

[Tom K]

"Flimsy" and "utterly un-newsworthy" could describe any number of stories that are just weak efforts within the normal spectrum of network news. This is more as if Janet Cooke or Jason Blair were a network news anchor. (There are differences, obviously, but I can't think of a prior instance where such a major national journalist has been so seriously wrong, in such a charged political environment, and handled the aftermath so poorly.)

I think the significance of this (apart from for Rather personally and CBS institutionally) -- that is, the "historic" aspect -- is that it highlights (rather than creating) and may well speed up the marginalization of network news. I know that is in some ways an old story -- but it is still a big enough story that this aspect of may fairly be called historic, IMHO.

[Tom K]

Anyway, Tom, you avoided my major question: why do the political affiliations of the critics matter, when they were fundamentally right in questioning the documents? That's the bit I really don't get, and see as partisan clinging to criticim of a perceived ideological/political adversary, when that criticism is not relevant to the subject under review.

[Tom W.]

Tom, did you see the whole report - the docs were only a part of it; the rest is basically unquestioned. Yeah, it was sloppy reporting and a rush to get something sensational on the air - that's TV "journalism" anyway.

To me, the combination of the insider status of the main "citizen journalist" - and secondarily his political affiliation - tips me off that it's all inside baseball....

[Tom K]

Tom:

I didn't see the report, actually, but based on your statement that it was nothing new, I'm curious what exactly was "basically unquestioned".

That Bush didn't go to Vietnam? That he attended Harvard Business School? That he served in the Guard? Or -- as I've already said any sentient life form would assume by now -- that Bush had help getting into the Guard (or Yale, or Harvard, or Arbusto, or the Rangers, for that matter).

What was the NEWS in that report apart from the memos themselves, and the specific factual allegations that rest upon them? Nothing, to my knowledge: but again, I admit I haven't seen it. So please, enlighten me.

[Tom W.]

You're exactly right and I've argued it here before - there was basically nothing new in the memos. It was a recycled story, with - on the surface - a new interview with Ben Barnes and some documents, adding every so slightly, if at all, to a story we already knew. Why CBS played it so big, was burned so bad, I just don't know.

And now, of course, the lame-ass media is following "Rathergate" as if it was an important story for the republic. What bullshit.

[Tom K]

Tom:

You recently wrote: ". . . did you see the whole report - the docs were only a part of it; the rest is basically unquestioned."

I understood this to mean that there is some aspect of the story that you believe survives the discrediting of the documents. (I don't know what else it could mean.)

So, what is that aspect?

[Tom W.]

Merely the entire story - minus a few discredited details of what commanders filed and when.

Namely that GWB used family influence to get in the Guard, flew planes, and dropped out early (against the rules but in some quasi-unenforceable gray area) to do other things in his life.

[Tom K]

I don't know what you mean by "that GWB used family influence to get in the Guard is unquestioned": so far as I know, it hasn't been admitted (though I don't think it can plausibly be denied.) Are you saying that false documents create a burden of response for the accused, even after their falsity is revealed?

As to dropping out early "against the rules", that is by no means clear; when he left, our "commitment" in Vietnam had, er, changed, and I have heard that many guard commitments were correspondingly allowed to terminate early, regardless of influence.

That doesn't mean Bush didn't enjoy the benefit of influence in this regard; I'd be inclined to suspect he did, if it was needed. But the very possibility that he did, and the fact that this may still matter to some voters, make it all the more imperative that news reports on the subject not be based on phony documents. When they are, to fall back on the notion that an unproven charge like this is "undenied" is to subordinate your judgment regarding journo ethics to your politics. (At least, I hope that's what it is, 'cause if those are really your unvarnished journo ethics, that's a whole other problem.)

Finally, you have overlooked (if not dodged) my observation that describing this sort of reporting as "flimsy" and "utterly un-newsworthy" is praising with a faint damn, to coin a rather awkward term. To call that which is fraudulent "flimsy" is to partially excuse it, and I still can't believe you'd be doing that in this case but for the political context.

[Tom W.]

Tom, you apparently missed the Ben Barnes portion of the 60 Minutes piece - which relied not on documents but on face-to-face testimony before the public of the man who pulled the strings to get GWB into the guard.

I wasn't calling the evidence flimsy - some in the entirety of the coverage of the Guard story is fraudulent and much is very real - I was calling the story flmsy, ie it was bad judgment to play it so damned big. Bush blew off the guard before the end of his commitment. So what. It's old news.

[Tom K]

Uh, I didn't miss the Barnes portion of the story, I missed the WHOLE story, as noted earlier. It may be that I confused you by cloaking this fact in opaque language ("I didn't see the report"), or it may be that you give my posts the attention they probably deserve.

From what I understand of Barnes, his contribution is no more credible than the faked docs., since he's previously denied what he now claims, and under oath.

Now people can change their stories, even their sworn stories, and remain credible, but when they do so in the course of a story that also relies on phony docs., they are hardly in a position to bail the story out. Such people need to be supported themselves, they're can't be lending much support.

Maybe what I've read about Barnes is just spin, but if he testified under oath in the past in a manner inconsistent with his current story, I think that's enough to prevent him from being credible enough to supply the support needed here. I'd look up what the truth is about him and his testimony, but this stuff makes my head hurt too much.

Why can't Rather just "do the honorable thing" and let us all get on with out lives?

[tribble455]

Maybe what I've read about Barnes is just spin, but if he testified under oath in the past in a manner inconsistent with his current story,...

He didn't. That's a canard. Unless you have chapter and verse and a transcript.

[Tom K]

The trouble with tribble's comment is, it suggests the objective truth depends on my subjective state of knowledge. If Trib. knows what I heard is false, they why is he hedging with "unless I have . . ."

I don't care enough to find out what the truth is here, but that surely doesn't change whatever it is.

[Vinnie Vin]

Dan Rather apologized. Now how about the rest of the media saying they are sorry for the falsehoods of the swiftboat ads that smeared a war hero for the whole month of August? The coverage of these ads as well as having these liars on the air on a continual basis when they only would have spread their lies in a few markets warrants accountability. The media knew they were wrong from the start as it clearly states in government records that Mr. Kerry deserved these medals. Not to mention the Navy itself confirmed this as well. So where are the apologies? I don't expect anything from Fox News as it is pretty much government run television but how about the other so-called networks?
Also, just because Fuhrman planted the bloody glove doesn't mean O.J.didn't kill Nicole Simpson and just because some idiot gives fake documents to CBS doesn't mean Bush didn't pull strings (as the secretary who typed similar documents confirms). CBS producers should be taken to task but it doesn't alter the fact that the Fortunate Hawk pulled strings to get out of serving.
And I believe the new ads that these smearboat veterans are putting out even though they distort what he said only help to show Kerry had a conscience after he served his country. And most people don't want a camouflage wall to cover up atrocities. This is a guy who went to serve his country because that is what you do, protect your country. Then he realized as we realize today his government wasn't completely honest with him. And the stark contrast between someone who tells us who are enemies are and pulled strings to avoid service versus someone who fully serves but has a conscience couldn't be clearer.
May this find everyone out there in the world happy and well,

Vinnie

[Mike]

Vinnie, you're a nut job.